logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.06.28 2016가단109427
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant: KRW 71,738,824 among the Plaintiff and KRW 771,738,340 among the Plaintiff and its related KRW 771,738,340 from February 22, 2016 to March 29, 2016.

Reasons

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff provided a credit guarantee for the defendant's obligation to a national bank. According to a credit guarantee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant, when the plaintiff performs the guaranteed obligation, agreed to pay the plaintiff the amount subrogated, the amount of damages for delay as prescribed by the Credit Guarantee Fund Act from the date of subrogation payment to the date of repayment of the amount of indemnity, the amount of damages for delay, the amount of liquidated damages, the amount of liquidated damages, and the amount of subrogated payment. However, the defendant caused a credit guarantee accident where the defendant defaultsd on the above loans to the national bank on December 31, 2015, and the plaintiff paid the amount of 73,505,720 won to the national bank on February 22, 2016, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the amount of subrogated payment remains 771,738,340 won as to the amount of partial recovery, the amount of damages for delay under Article 35 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act is 10% from February 16.

According to the facts found above, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 771,738,824 (i.e., the remainder of the subrogated amount of KRW 771,738,340; KRW 484; 771,738,340; and the remainder of the subrogated amount of KRW 771,738,340; and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from February 22, 2016 to March 29, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case; and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings

Therefore, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow